VII. PARTB: … moil 11:56 fax 202 205 9179 off of special ed prg newjerseymonitoring report page _5...

09/17/01 MOIL 11 :56 FAX 202 205 9179

OFF OF SPECIAL ED PRG

New Jersey Monitoring Report

Page _5 3

VII. PART B: FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THELEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

The provision ofa free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment is the .foundation of IDEA. The provisions of the statute and regulations (evaluation. IEP. parent andstudent involvement, transition; participation in large-scale assessment, eligibility and placementdecisions, service provision, etc.) exist to achieve this single purpose. It means that children withdisabilities receive educational services at no cost to their parents, and that the services providedmeet their unique learning needs. Children with disabilities are educated, to the maximum extentappropriate, with children who do not have disabilities and, unless their IEPs require some otherarrangement, in the school they would attend ifthey did not have a disability . Any removal ofchildren with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the natureor severity ofthe disability is such that education in regular classes with the use ofsupplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily .

The IDEA '97 Committee Reports of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources andthe House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce emphasized that toomany students with disabilities are failing courses and dropping out of school . Those reportsnoted that almost twice as many children with disabilities drop out as compared to childrenwithout disabilities . They expressed a further concern about the continued inappropriateplacement ofchildren from minority backgrounds and children with limited English proficiencyin special education. The Committees stated their intention that "once a child has been identifiedas being eligible for special education, the connection betweenspecial education and relatedservices and the child's opportunity to experience andbenefit from the general educationcurriculum should be strengthened . The majority of children identified as eligible for specialeducation and related services are capableof participating in the general education curriculum tovarying degrees with some adaptations and modifications. This provision is intended to ensurethat children's special education and related services are in addition to and are affected by thegeneral education curriculum, not separate from it ."

'

Validation Planning and Data Collection

Prior Monitoring

OSEP's 1999 Monitoring Report ofNew Jersey identified three areas ofnoncompliance in theprovision of a fitie appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment:

1. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment: (a) NJSDE did not ensure that studentswith disabilities are placed in the least restrictive environment, including that removal ofstudentwith disabilities from the regular education environmentoccurs only if the child's educationcannot be achieved satisfactorily in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids andservices ; (b) NJSDE did not ensure that students with disabilities participate with nondisabledstudents in both academic andnonacademic activities to the maximum extent appropriate; and(e) NJSDE's monitoring system did not identify systemic noncompliance with respect toplacement of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.

SEP 17 2001 12 :32

202 205 9179

PAGE .61

10061

09/17/01

MOr 11 :57 FAX 202 205 9179


0062


Page 5=1

2.

Related Services : NJSDE did not ensure that : (a) psychological counseling as a relatedservice was provided if students with disabilities needed that service to benefit from specialeducation; (b) students with disabilities were receiving a "standard" amount of time forcounseling services and, thus, IEPs were not individualized; (e) IEPs did not contain goals andobjectives that addressed the needs necessitating related services ; and (d) the State's monitoringsystem identified noncompliance with respect to related services .

3. . Extended School Year Services : NJSDE failed to identify noncompliance for therequirements-of extended school year services .

In response to the 1999 OSEP monitoring report, OSEP required NJSDE to implement acorrective action plan addressing the following requirements :

1 . Complete a program review to verify requirements for the least restrictive environmentprovisions

.2: Schedule and complete follow-up visits to verify the implementation ofcorrective action

plans in all local education agencies found to be noncompliant.3.

Prepare a statewide analysis of the results ofthe on-site visits regarding the least restrictiveenvironment provisions

4. Based on the results ofthe on-site visits, NJSDE must propose to OSEP and implementfollow-up reviews

5. Prepare an analysis of its program review system and provide modifications to its systembased on this analysis .

.,6. Conduct on-going training for child study supervisors, special education administrators in

receiving programs, special education teachers, and regular education teachers regarding therequirements for least restrictive environments .

7. Conduct on-site program review visits to receiving programs and verify the implementationof corrective action plans in all local education agencies found to be noncompliant.

NJSDE Corrective Actions Taken

In response to the 1999 OSEP report, NJSDE developed the following -corrective actions relatedto IDEA provisions addressing student placement in the least restrictive environment:

Directed the four local education agencies in which OSEP found noncompliance to developcorrective action plans to immediately address all areas of noncomplianceIncluded these four local education agencies in the State's pilot year of the new self-assessment based monitoring systemIssued a statewide policy statement regarding regulatory requirements andthe State'sposition on placement of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environmentProvided technical assistance to twenty-eight local education agencies identified in the AbbotDecision regarding the creation of preschool programs with afocus on increasing regulareducation placement options for preschool children with disabilitiesConducted statewide training for local education agency administrators

SEP 17 2001 12 :32

202 205 9179

PAGE .62

09/17/01

MON 11 :57 FAX 202 205 9179


0063


Page 55

Developed a model IEP format that provides laal education agencies with a clear process formaking individual determinations regarding placement decisions and a way to document thatindividualized decision-making process in the IEPPublished an inclusion newsletter to disseminate best practices information to parents andeducatorsinstituted significant regulatory changes to increase the opportunity for preschool childrenwith disabilities to be placed in regular education settingsFocused capacity building funds on the State's goal of increasing the number of students withdisabilities who are educated in'general education programs with appropriate supports andservices .

NJSDE Self-Assessment

The Statewide Special Education Self-Assessment Report addressed the extent to which studentswith disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment,which promote high standards. The Report identified six strengths: (1) training and technicalassistance are focused on promoting a decision-making process for placing student withdisabilities in general education programs with appropriate program modifications and supports ;(2) NJSDE is collaborating with other agencies in the provision of avariety of training activitiesand information dissemination, such as the Inclusion Newsletter, in collaboration with the StateParent Advocacy Network (SPAN), focusing on the least restrictive environment; (3) NJSDEdisseminated a comprehensive and positively received policy paper addressing the topic ofplacement in the least restrictive environment; (4).the NJSDE efforts appear to be influencing anexpanded continuum ofplacement options; (5) the NJSDE monitoring of local school districts ismore stringent; and (6) revision ofthe funding formula has removed incentives for placingstudents in separate programs.

The Self-Assessment Report also identified areas or opportunities for improvement: (1) manydistricts do not have in-district placement options for children with more significant disabilities,especially children with challenging behaviors; (2) school administrative leadership does notalways facilitate placement in the least restrictive environment; (3) the use ofnon-traditionalsupports and strategies to facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilities is- often notconsidered; (4) recommendations are often made based on what is available instead ofwhat isneeded; (5) not enough different inclusive models are being implemented for replication; (6)rationale for restrictive placements is not always well documented; (7) children ofminority/raceethnicity or children who speak languages other than English are disproportionately placed in themost separate settings ; (8) there is a lack of appropriate in-class support, accessible facilities andrelated services within general education; and (9) separate classes, pull-out services and out-ofdistrict placements are the rule not the exception.

A. AREA QF STRENGTH

Statewide Training/Technical Assistance Initiatives and Local Promising Practices

NJSDE has designed and implemented statewide initiatives to enhance local capacity to providegreater placement options for students with disabilities, thereby increasing opportunities for

SEP 17 2001 12 :33

202 205 9179

PAGE.63

09/17/01 MOr 11

New Jersey ;Monitoring Report

Page 56

students to be served in the least restrictive environment. The initiatives include: (1) training inthe 28 Abbott Districts to address placement of preschool children ; (2) using capacity buildingfunds ($4.5 -million) for grants to 67 local districts with the highest number of restrictiveplacements to address reduction of restrictive placements ; (3) collaborating with the New YorkUniversity Equity Assistance Center .in response to the memorandum of understanding betweenNJSDEand the Regional Office for Civil Rights, U.S . Department of Education, to address theissue of overrepresentation of minority students in restrictive placements; (4) collaborating withthe Developmental Disability Council in presenting an Inclusion Institute in ten local educationdistricts; (5) conducting biweekly oversight of progress in high risk districts; and (6) institutingtargeted reviews of local education districts as a result of complaint investigations andmonitoring findings .

In addition, OSEP visited a local program at Metuchen High School,in the Metuchen SchoolDistrict that demonstr4ted practices that the State believed to evidence exemplary services forstudents with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. The NewJersey DevelopmentalDisabilities Council also recognized the Metuchen High School program for its exemplaryinclusion practices . The foundation of the school's inclusion program is the philosophy that allchildren belong in the school, with goals toward not only providing quality special educationservices, but to increasing the acceptance of people with disabilities among the entire school andcommunity. The school has taken proactive steps to increase the collaboration among regular andspecial education teachers and parents. The school has approached inclusion in a manner that haspromoted the confidence of regular education teachers in meeting the special affective,intellectual and psychological needs of students with disabilities, especially students whoareemotionally disturbed and behaviorally challenged . OSEP concurs with NJSDE that the programis promising and suggests the State continue to encourage other districts to replicate this model.

B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

1 . Removal

(a) Lack of Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment

34 CFR §300.550 requires each public agency to ensure that, to the extent appropriate, childrenwith disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled . Placement in special classes,separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educationalenvironment may occur only if the nature or severity ofthe disability is such that education inregular classes with the'use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily .The services andplacement needed by each child with a disability to receive a free appropriatepublic education must be based on the child's unique needs and not on the category of the child'sdisability.

In OSEP's previous monitoring reports, OSEP found that the NJSDE did not ensure that studentswith disabilities were placed in the least restrictive environment. Further, NJSDE failed to ensurethat students with disabilities were removed from the regular education environment only whenthe child's education could not be achieved satisfactorily in regular classes with the use ofsupplementary aids and services . Previous reports also indicated that for children with

SEP 17 2001 12:33

202 205 9179

PAGE .64

09/17/01 MON 11 :58 FAX 202 205 9179

N « Jersey Monitoring Report

disabilities in self-contained classes and separate schools, participation in nonacademic andextracurricular services and activities with nondisabled peers was not an individualized decisionbased upon an IEP. New Jersey revised the State's monitoring system (based on fifteen areas,one of which is least restrictive environment) and beganusing the revised monitoring systemduring the 1999-2000 school year. NJSDE made findings related to placing students in the leastrestrictive environment in all eight local education agencies visited by OSEP in 2000.

OSEP found in 2000 that many children with disabilities are nowplaced in less restrictiveplacements than they were at the time of OSEP's 1998 visit. OSEP's 1999 Report indicated thatin one school district, all students classified as "educable or trainable mentally retarded" wereplaced in separate segregated settings . Although OSEP notes that these students have now beenplaced in a regular high school building and have the potential for increased interaction withnondisabled peers, OSEP observed and educators confirmed that the students remain in self-contained classrooms in one isolated section of the high school building. In another district, anadministrator confirmed that many of the students with multiple disabilities have returned to thedistrict from out of district placements . Through interviews with teachers and administratorsOSEP found that students who returned from these placements tended to be placed in self-contained settings and moved, as agroup, from class to class limiting interaction withnondisabled peers. Decisions for removal of these students from regular education classescontinued to be based on other factors, including the category of their disability rather than ontheir individual needs. OSEP also interviewed local school-based and districtwide staff whoadminister the Families and Children Early Education Services (F.A.C.E.S.) preschool programin the Vineland School District and the school reform program at Rafael Codem Molina Schoolin the Camden School District, two programs which demonstrated innovative approaches toproviding a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for studentswith disabilities . However, OSEP confirmed through interviews with teachers andadministrators in all districts visited by OSEP that students are not, in all cases, placed in theleast restrictive environment.

OSEP Follow-Up Visit in 2001

In four ofthe districts visited by OSEP in June, 2001 two of the districts had correctednoncompliance in the area of least restrictive environment and the other two districts were in theprocess of beginning implementation of their corrective action plans approved by NJSDE inMarch 2001 . NewJersey is providing direct oversight andtargeted technical assistance in thesetwo districts to .ensure effective correction of noncompliance in the area of least restrictiveenvironment.

(b) Segregated Placement - Students with Behavioral Issues


[6065

7

34 CFR §300.346(aX2xi) requires'that the IEP team, in the case ofa child whose behaviorimpedes his or her learning or that of others, consider, if appropriate, strategies, includingpositive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address the behavior.

OSEP found that in the case of children, whose behavior impedes their learning or that of others,the IEP team did not consider strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies

SEP 17 2001 12:34

202 205 9179

PAGE .65

09/17/01 MON 11 :59 FAX 202 205 9179

New Terse;: Monitoring Report

and supports to address the behavior. Forexample, in seven of the eight local education agenciesvisited by OSEP, special education directors, special education teachers, child study teammembers and school psychologists stated they were unaware of the requirements of§300.346(a)(2)(ii), andthat they did not include the required consideration as part of the IEPprocess. They specifically stated they did not understand howto develop appropriate behaviorintervention plans in all seven ofthe eight districts. Further, in one local education agency,regular education teachers reported behavior issues to be the primary barrier to having morestudents in their regular education classrooms. In another local education agency, schoolpersonnel confirmed that the "Proactive Behavior Management Plan" contained in severalstudents' IEPs was "merely a checkoff identifying target behaviors." Several administrators inthis district acknowledged that the behavior intervention plans were not developed through theIEP process. The behavior plans were not based on an -evaluation or assessment of the individualstudent's needs. This issue had been identified in an earlier state monitoring report and was beingaddressed in the local education agency's corrective action plan . In athird local educationagency, teachers were not aware of IDEA requirements concerning behavior interventionstrategies . Teachers believed the child study team had the responsibility to implement behaviorintervention plans.

When OSEP asked interviewees in. eight local education agencies to identify the barriers toplacing students with disabilities in regular education classes, many special and regulareducation teachers, child study team members and administrators agreed that "behavior is thenumber one barrier." They further explained that class sizes are smaller for students in self-contained placements and special education teachers are trained to address the challengingbehaviors of these students . They reported that regular education teachers, in particular, needtraining in classroom management to address the special needs ofthis population . In one ofthelocal education agencies, the administrator stated, "Massive training for teachers is needed .These individuals are not adequately prepared to address behavioral issues ." An administrator ina second local education agency reported that Child Study Team members are "inclined to placestudents with behavior management issues in out-of-district placements." In a third localeducation agency, a building administrator and a special education teacher both agreed thatstudents are placed in self-contained classes for behavioral reasons. They felt that some of thesestudents were socially maladjusted rather than emotionally disturbed. There wasmisunderstanding of requirements that the IEP team consider positive behavioral interventionsand strategies when a student's behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others.

As described in the finding below regarding the provision ofrelated services, OSEP found thatregular education facilities are not equipped with adequate supports and services, such aspsychological counseling services, to allow students with emotional disturbances to remain in theschools where they would normally attend or to return to these locations in a timely manner. Inaddition, administrators andteachers stated they were unaware of IDEA requirements concerningthe provisions related to functional behavioral assessments and the development andimplementation of behavior intervention plans.


Page 58

SEP 17 2001 12:35

202 205 9179

PAGE .66


(c) Impact of Administrative Practices on Placement

Page 59

Teachers and administrators identified four administrative practices that.led to placing studentsin more restrictive environments : (1) class grouping, (2) limitations on class size and lack ofspace (3) lack ofcommunication between IEP teams and class schedulers, and (4) themisunderstanding about NewJersey rules and regulations regarding the use ofthe co-teachingmodel.

At schools in-three local education agencies, students with disabilities were grouped together forscheduling purposes throughout the day even though many of their teachers stated these students,based on the educators observation and assessment of the students, would have been successfulin regular education classrooms with nondisabled students for music, art, and physical educationsubjects . In these local education agencies, school personnel stated that scheduling students withdisabilities ingroups was a means ofintegration because students moved among a variety ofclassrooms. They further explained the students were instructed by regular education teachersand walked in the hallways between classes with nondisabled peers. Administrators in these localeducation agencies reported to OSEP that the students stayed together throughout the day and didnot have classes with nondisabled peers and that no individualized placement decisions weremade about the individual membersof these groups . Although this type ofgrouping did notallow students with disabilities the same opportunities for instruction in regular education classes(including extracurricular and nonacademic instruction), the administrators believed thisarrangement provided students with disabilities increased opportunities for socialization in thehallways with nondisabled students . The IEPs reviewed by OSEP in the three local educationagencies stated the students would be in regular education classes such as music and physicaleducation . However, while regular education teachers taught these students music and physicaleducation, students with disabilities remained in the same segregated group throughout the day.

Educators in all eight local education agencies stated that lack of space and administrativelimitations on class size were among the reasons for placing students in amore restrictiveenvironment. In five local education agencies at the high school level, educational personnel whodevelop class schedules make decisions about appropriate courses where students are to beplaced without considering the special needs of individual students with disabilities . Whenplacing students with disabilities in elective courses, there is no communication mechanismbetween the school class scheduler and the IEP team to ensure a free appropriate publiceducation in the least restrictive environment. For example, in one local education agency, astudent's courseof study for the current school year indicated the student was taking Algebra II.The special education teacher was surprised to learn in an interview with OSEP staffthat thestudent was enrolled in Algebra II because the student had not taken Algebra I. In a second localeducation agency, astudent was enrolled in drafting as an elective because that was the coursewhich had space for the student when the scheduler compiled the school's schedule. The studenthad a disability that severely impaired his ability to perform drafting assignments. The teacherssaid the student was not likely to receive a passing grade during the first quarter. The teachersalso said they had not been informed about accommodations and modifications to assist thestudent to be more successful in the class. In these instances, class size, space, and availability ofseats were reported to be the primary factors for determining in which classes students withdisabilities are placed. In one of these local education agencies, four special education teachers

SEP 17 2001 12 " 35

202 2059179

PAGE .67

09/17/01 MOT 12 :00 FAX 202 205 9179


I~J068


Page 60

reported that the IEP teams are not empowered to make decisions about the extent to which achild will be educated with nondisabled children . The IEP team does not have input into thedecision-malting process for individual class assignments. If a class is full, a student will notreceive the opportunity to participate in a regular education class even when the IEP states theleast restrictive environment would be a regular education class. In addition to the precedingadministrative practices, other factors were identified, including insufficient resources such assupplies and equipment, parent choice, and attitudes ofschool personnel.

In one local education agency, there was a misunderstanding among educators about the use ofco-teaching and in-class support.'Teachers from this local education agency believed that theNew Jersey State law prohibited high schools from using the co-teaching model. NJSDE'smonitoring report of this local education agency stated that the co-teaching model had thepotential to greatly decrease the number of students who are served in segregated specialeducation classes.

2. Lack of Psychological Counseling Services as a Related Service

34 CFR §300.300(a)(3)(i) requires that services provided to children with disabilities address allof the child's identified special education and related services needs. Public agencies mustprovide psychological counseling to each child with a disability who requires that related serviceto benefit from special education. 34 CFR §300.24(b)(9)

When compared to previous monitoring visits in blew Jersey, OSEP found evidence in somelocal education agencies ofincreased availability ofpsychological counseling services forchildren with disabilities . However, in six ofthe local education agencies visited by OSEP in2000, special education teachers, regular education teachers, special education directors, buildingadministrators and child study team members continue to report that psychological counselingservices were not provided in all cases for children who needed the services to benefit fromspecial education. New Jersey revised the State's monitoring system (based on fifteen areas, oneof which is psychological services as a related service) and began using the revised monitoringsystem during the 1999-2000 school year. NJSDE made findings related to providingpsychological services as a related service in these six local education agencies .

In one local education agency, two special education teachers reported that counseling servicesas set forth in the IEP were not provided due to the absence of adequate staff. The guidancecounselor was available only one dayper week. Only three of the nine students in the school whohad psychological counseling services written into their IEPs received services . Six students whoneeded the services were unable to receive them. In another local education agency, the IEPs forseveral students classified as emotionally disturbed stated that these students were receiving 15minutes of psychological counseling two to four times per month. When queried about thefrequency and duration of this service; teachers reported that this determination was anadministrative decision based on the availability ofqualified staff, rather than the individualneeds ofeach child.

In another local education agency three child study team members reported that students arereferred to the local mental health clinic for counseling even ifthey needed psychological.

SEP 17 2001 12 " 36

202 205 9179

PAGE.68

09/17/01

MOr 12 :01 FAX 202 205 9179


0069


Page 61

counseling to benefit from special education. The building administrator in this local educationagency said the school provides the parents with a list of outside resources but "it is up to theparents to get the services." If a therapist is recommended and the parent does not followthrough, the principal will talk to the parent andwill require the parent to make an appointmentfor psychological services in lieu of suspension.

In three additional local education agencies, educators, parents and child study team memberssaid the provision ofpsychological services are provided by agencies other than the school and atthe parents' expense. In one of these local education agencies, six child study team members,two counselors, seven special education teachers, and the special education director stated thatcounseling services are not obtained through the IEP regardless of student need. Child studyteam members referred parents to community resources . One counselor reported that parentswere asked to use their insurance to seek mental health counseling . A school psychologist in thislocal education agency, said counseling was identified as aneed in a student's re-evaluation butwas not discussed at the IEP meeting because the "floodgates" would open if psychologicalcounseling was offered as a related service. In another local education agency, special andregular education teachers said when students needed psychological services to benefit fromspecial education, the parents were referred to outside agencies and that guidance counselorswould work with students on an emergency, crisis situation. In another local education agency,the child study team members said psychological services, when needed, were obtainedproviders were not evident through interviews with teachers, child study team member outsidethe school . Linkages with outside psychologists, and guidance counselors .

During the review ofstudent files by OSEP, one of the files showed that a student with anemotional impairment would require psychological counseling in order to benefit from specialeducation. However, during interviews with school staff, teachers said the student was notreceiving psychological counseling services . .OSEP also reviewed the student's transcript to notethe student's progress in the general curriculum . The transcript indicated failure in 80-90% ofclasses over a two-year period . Two regular education teachers told OSEP that the student hadexhibited many behavioral problems during the previous school year and the teachers saw acontinuing need to focus on possible strategies to improve the student's emotional condition inthe present school year. When OSEP asked the child study team at what point-the IEP teamwould consider appropriate psychological counseling to meet the needs of this specific student,the child study team members said that, although the school has a school psychologist on staffwho could potentially provide the individual counseling services to meet this child's needs, thepsychologist is unable to do so because of a high caseload and other duties that preclude theappropriate provision ofpsychological counseling to this child. Child. study team membersfurther stated that the school district was not required to pay for the services from an outsideagency because school staffwas qualified to provide the services .

OSEP Follow-Up Visit in 2001

In the four districts visited by OSEP in June, 2001, one district did not have afinding in the areaofpsychological services as a related service, one ofthe districts had corrected noncompliance inthe area ofpsychological services as a related service and the other two districts were in theprocess of beginning implementation of their corrective action plans approved by NJSDE in

SEP 17 2001 12:37

202 205 9179

PAGE .69

u

09%17101

MOr 12 :02 FAX 202

LO07U


March 2001 . New Jersey is providing direct oversight and targeted technical assistance in thesetwo districts to ensure effective correction ofnoncompliance in the area ofpsychologicalservices as a related service.

3. Failure to Consider Extended School Year Services on an Individual Basis

Page 62

34 CFR §300.300 requires that a free appropriate public education be made available to allchildren with disabilities. In addition, 34 CFR §300.309 requires that extended school yearservices (ESY) be provided in accordance with an appropriate IEP that meets Part Brequirements if necessary to provide a free appropriate public education for a particular child.

NewJersey revised the State's monitoring system (based on fifteen areas, one of which isextended school year services) and begad using the revised monitoring system during the 1999-2000 school year. NJSDE made findings related to extended school year services in all eightlocal education agencies visited by OSEP in 2000 .

WhileNJSDE reissued a policy bulletin regarding the provision of extended school year servicesand developed and disseminated amodel IEP form to include the consideration ofextendedschool year services at annual IEP meetings, in four ofthe eight local education agencies visitedby OSEP, the consideration of extended school year services was not made on individual basis.One ofthe districts had no mechanism in place to ensure that each child with a disability who isin need of extended year services is identified and provided services based on his or her IEP. Inthree of the local education agencies, special education teachers were not familiar with thecriteria for determining whether a child is eligible for extended year services. In one localeducation agency, the extended school year service was regular summer school if the parentrequested the service. These local education agencies were cited by NJSDE as being out ofcompliance with the requirement concerning extended school year services . .

In another local education agency, three special education teachers stated the locally developedset of twelve criteria to qualify students for extended year services wastoo restrictive because astudent had to meet eight of the twelve criteria for extended year services even when childrenneeded the services to benefit from special education . The twelve criteria are: (1) parent request,(2) severe socialization difficulty, (3) evidencing significant cognitive delay, (4) in need ofdirectspeech/language therapy, (S) displays autistic behavior, (6) self-help skills are poor, (7) evidencethat student skills would significantly regress, (8) behaviors are such that students require strictbehavior programming, (9) in need of direct occupational therapy service's, (10) in need of directphysical therapy services, (11) teacher recommendation, and (12) child study teamrecommendation. While none ofthe twelve criteria is inconsistent with Part B requirements, apublic agency maynot deny extended school year services to a child who needs such services aspart of afree appropriate public education because the child does not meet at least eight ofthosetwelve criteria . Although the special education director in this local education agency reportedthe twelve criteria were only to serve as aguide when considering extended year services, theteachers' understanding was that eight of the twelve criteria had to be met before extended yearservices were provided. When the OSEP reviewed the information on the district's IEP form,the IEP form confirmed the teachers' understanding. The state monitor accompanying OSEPagreed this was a problem and stated there would be activities to address this issue because the

SEP 17 2001 12 :37

202 205 9179

PAGE .70

09/17/01 MON 12 :02 FAX 202 205 9179


Page 63

state had identified extended school year services-as an issue in a previous monitoring report inthe local education agency . Part B does not permit a public agency to deny extended school yearservices to a student because the student does not meet eight of twelve district criteria .

OSEP Follow-Up Visit in2001

In four of the districts visited by OSEP in June, 2001 two of the districts hadcorrectednoncompliance in the area ofextended school year services and the other two districts were inthe process of beginning implementation oftheir corrective action plans approved by NJSDE inMarch2001 . New Jersey is providing direct oversight and targeted technical assistance in thesetwo districts to, ensure effective correction of noncompliance in the area of.extended school yearservices .

4. Denial of Related Services and Delays in Evaluation Due to an Insufficient Supply ofPersonnel

The IDEA regulations at 34 CFR §300.300(a) require that children with disabilities be providedservices that address all ofthe child's identified special education and related services needs. Inaddition, 34 . CFR §300.381 requires that each State must analyze State and local needs forprofessional development for personnel to serve children with disabilities .

OSEP found evidence of an inadequate supply ofpersonnel in seven local education agencies . Inone local education agency, the special education director told OSEP that there were ten studentswith disabilities whose IEPs specify that they were to receive speech services . However, thelocal education agency was not providing the speech and language services because the localeducation agency had been unable to hire speech and language pathologists due to personnelshortages in the state.

In a second local education agency, special education teachers and the special education directorstated there were personnel shortages in the area of speech therapy. The local education agencyhad three vacancies. The impact of the vacancies prohibited students from receiving servicesspecified in their IEPs for the first three weeks ofthe 2000-2001 school year. - In a third localeducation agency the Child Study Team reported critical personnel shortages for speech andlanguage pathologists . The special education director in the local education agency confirmedthat shortages in the areas of speech and language pathologists andspecial education teacherswere critical . The director had requested a waiver from the state so that personnel would be ableto fill these positions on an emergency or temporary basis. The severe shortage of speech andlanguage pathologists impacted the delivery of services in accordance with students' IEPs . In thesame local education agency a building administrator stated there was ashortage ofspeech andlanguage pathologists and certified special education resource teachers . Students were notreceiving services identified in their IEPs. In a fourth district the special education directorreported there was ashortage ofspeech therapists. While all students were receiving,services, thefrequency and the duration ofthe services were reduced from those specified in the IEP.

In two large urban local education agencies and one rural local education agency, OSEP foundthat the lack of qualified examiners delayed initial evaluations andre-evaluations of students'

SEP 17 2001 12 " 39

OFF OF S

202 205 9179

PAGE .?i

09/17/01 MON 12 :03 FAX 202 205 9179


16072


Pa" 64

whose first language was not English. The directors of special education in the local educationagencies confirmed that there is a shortage of qualified examiners for students whose firstlanguage is Spanish and who have limited English proficiency. One of the directors alsoidentified vacancies in the positions ofschool psychologist, learning consultant (a member of thechild study team), speech and language pathologist, occupational therapist and physical therapist.

C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS

1. Providing a continuum options for preschool aged children

Among local education agencies visited by OSEP, special education directors stated that, ingeneral, the state has limited public options for preschoolers, thus, making- it difficult to servepreschoolers with disabilities in a regular education preschool classroom . One of the directorsidentified a major impediment as the lack ofcoordination between private preschools servingchildren with developmental dela s and the local education agency's small early childhoodprogram. Even in Abbott districts , where NJSDE has provided additional funding for districts toprovide publicly funded preschool programs, preschool children with disabilities in several oftheAbbott districts still have limited access to regular preschool programs . In one ofthe large urbanAbbott districts visited by OSEP four-year-old preschoolers without disabilities attended full-daypre-kindergarten while four-year-olds with disabilities only had available half-day programs.NJSDE must continue its collaboration with the Abbott School District Office to optimizeopportunities for children with disabilities to interact with and be educated with their

'nondisabled preschool peers.

.,

2. Increasing Participation of IEP Team Members in IEP Decision-Making Process

In New Jersey, the composition ofthe IEP team includes members ofthe local educationagency's child study team. The child study team is composed of school psychologists, learningdisabilities teacher consultants and school social workers. These individuals have a variety ofresponsibilities that impact on identification, development ofthe IEP, and the placements ofstudents with disabilities. In all districts, interviews with school personnel suggested that childstudy team members make most of the decisions related to students' instruction and placement.Teachers in all local education agencies explained that they have very little input into thesedecisions. Participants at IEP team meetings such as parents, .special education teachers, regulareducation teachers andothers serving on the IEP team who are not child study team members,look to the child study team as the "expert" members of the team. Additionally, these individualssaid they often deferred to the child study team member regarding appropriate placement for thechild. NJSDE must continue to provide technical assistance to IEP team members to ensure thatall participants are equally represented at the IEP team meeting and that decisions made at theIEP meeting are representative ofall meeting participants, including but not limited to child

9 Abbott districts include 28 poor urban school districts that were litigants in a longstanding court case (Abbott vBurke) regarding school funding inequities. Abbott districts receive additional school funds and are required toimplement urban education reform initiatives (Whole School Reform) to ensure thatpublic school children,including students with disabilities and limited English proficient students from the poorer urban school districtsreceive the educational entitlements guaranteed,them by the Constitution and to meet the requirements of thedecision ofthe New Jersey Supreme court in Abbott v Burke. decided May 21, 1998.

SEP 17 2001 12:39

202 205 9179

PAGE .72

09/17/01 MON 12 :03 FAX 202 205 9179



study team members (i.e . learning disability teacher consultant, school psychologist, socialworker).

3. Contracting for Speech Therapy

Educators, especially Directors of Special Education, in all districts identified the shortage ofspeech and language pathologists as a hindrance to timely provision ofspeech services. Thisconcern was discussed in the section of the report addressing the adequacy ofqualified staff. Infour local education agencies educators further identified a part of this shortage to be caused by astate prohibition ofdirect local education agency contracts with speech pathologists . NJSDEconfirmed this prohibition. The educators felt the law prevented their districts from providingspeech services in accordance with students' IEPs. OSEP recommends that the NJSDE reviewthis concern and, if the law is determined to be an impediment to providing speech services tostudents with disabilities who need such services to benefit from special education, takeappropriate action to correct the effect ofthe law.

4. More Opportunities for Use of In-Class Support and Team Teaching/Co-TeachingModels

In-class support is a resource placement option that.allows for increased opportunities forstudents with disabilities to receive services in regular class s,ettings. With this option, studentsreceive their instruction in the regular education class rather than being pulled out oftheclassroom for instruction. Teachers in four local education agencies said more students withdisabilities would be served in less restrictive environments if in-class support was more widelyavailable . An administrator in one local education agency confirmed that efforts are being madeto expand the in-class support option for students in self-contained settings. Personnel reportedin a second local education agency that in-class support for students at the elementary andmiddle school levels had been expanded. Teachers and administrators in three districts indicatedthey had successfully implemented co-teaching models that created additional opportunities forstudents with disabilities to participate in the general education classroom. With this option, aregular and a special education teacher are assigned to a class full time . Regular educationteachers indicated a need, for increased use of co-teaching/team teaching model's. They felt thathaving a second teacher in class for the entire daywould have numerous benefits includingbehavior control, whichwas identified in this section of this Report as the major barrier for nothaving more students placed in regular education classrooms .

S. ImprovingTransition from Part C to Part B Programs

Part C and Part B staff reported inadequate coordination andcommunication between Part B andC personnel and State staff as significant impediments to asmooth early childhood transition.The need for better communication and collaboration has been identified at the State level byboth Part C and Part B personnel and state staffare identifying newprocedures to ensure bettertransition for children who are moving from Part C services to Part B services . OSEP recognizesthe efforts now underway at the State level to address the coordination and communicationbetween Part C and Part B personnel in ensuring the smooth early transition from early

Paue 6 5

SEP 17 2001 12 :39

202 205 9179

PAGE.73

073

09/17/01 MON 12 :09 FAX 202 205 9179


New lersev Monitoring Report

Page 66

intervention services to preschool programs and encourages NJSDE to finalize the interagencyagreement between NJSDE and DHSS .

SEP 17 2001 12:39 202 205 9179

PAGE.74

VII. PARTB: … moil 11:56 fax 202 205 9179 off of special ed prg newjerseymonitoring report page _5...

Documents

Transcript of VII. PARTB: … moil 11:56 fax 202 205 9179 off of special ed prg newjerseymonitoring report page _5...